135mm Lens - Nikon W or Rodenstock APO Sironar S?

I'm having a difficult time deciding between these two lenses. The

big advantage of the Nikon is that I can buy it used in excellent

condition for about $350 and a new Rodenstock is close to twice that.

I don't mind paying the money if I'm likely to really see a

difference in my photographs but I have no experience with either

lens or with either brand for that matter (except that I have a 300M

Nikon lens but that's an M and this is a W). I know Kerry Thalman

raved about the Rodenstock APO Sironar S line in his View Camera

article and was luke warm to say the least towards the Nikon W line

in his current article. OTOH, most people seem to agree that there is

virtually no difference in quality of current lenses among the big

four manufacturers and that's pretty much been my experience with the

three Schneiders and one Nikon I now own.

 

I don't expect anyone to tell me what to do but I'd welcome any

thoughts (except thoughts that I should get a different focal length

or a different brand - I've decided to get this focal length and it

will be one of these two brands).

Brian the Apo Sironar series reaaly has no equivelent in the Nikon line. I believe that a more accurate statement in comparing the 'big 4' is that they are all more than acceptable not that there is no difference unless yhou are doing a total 1:1 such as the Nikkor W to the Apo Siroar N or Apo Symmar.

 

I find the Nikkor wides and longs to be great performers but am underwhelmed by the W's. I have done side-by-side comparison of the Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikon 150's and the Nikon was definitely outclassed. At the same shutter speed and f stop the Nikkor was much less contrasty than the others. I did this test two years ago ad you should finf the original post in the archives here. I did the same test on the 210's but didn't have 135's available; thus, while I suspect the results would be similar (they were with the 210's, I can't say for sure. E-mail me if you want to see scans of the results and I will see if I still have them.

 

As for the 135 Apo Sironar-S it is side-by-side with the 110xl as my most used 'general purpose' lens. When I first used it I was expecting better performance than my 150 Apo Symmar but the difference was startling. This lens is one of those rare all time winners.

Brian,

 

As far as focal length goes, I for one, love my 135 Sironar-S. It is a very

versatile length and given the opportunity to go back in time, would select the

same lens.

 

My major concern about buying used is my lack of understanding about the

lineage of the various models. Just the other day, while searching the

archives here, I learned that (for example) the Rodenstock "N" lenses are not

all created equal. The "N" lenses come in several flavors and the buyer must

know what he/she is getting in to. I do not know if the same holds true for

Nikon lenses but, I suggest you first find-out before you buy anything.

 

Ultimately, I would like to get a 90mm and a longer lens say, a 180 or 210. [i

have a Shen Hao with a 310mm maximum bellow lenght so, I don't want

anything too long]. My preference would be another Rodenstock lens

because I am so thrilled with the fine quality of the one I have. My plan for

now is to do my homework and learn about the lineage and pros/cons of

various lenses. Once I determine the specific lens or lenses I am interested

in, I can make a decision about buying either new or used.

 

I'm not really offering any advice here... I'm just telling you what's on my mind

as we seem to be in the same boat.

 

Regards

i unkowenly bought the rodenstock 135 f5.6, for my crown graphic. it fits in the camera folded and has been a delight to work with. it stops down to f 64 which can be a help somedays..i was going thru the resolution tests the other and was floored by the resoloution tests throu-out the entire circle. if i remember right it blew the other lenses in its class away.. i just bought a 90 f 8single coated schnieder for 325. it needed to be timed, cleaned etc for 115 plus shipping.. the resolution specks were less than average.. if its going to be your main shooter get the new rodenstock 135.. in my oopinion 135 is the best all around focal length for 4x5. of course that can start as many arguments as people want, but you dont have the fall off of the wider lenses, and quite a bit of coverage the 210 wont give.. ok the 150 would also be in the same class, good luck dave.

If Nikon is good enough for John Sexton, it is plenty good enough for me. Sure anyone can run tests of lens A against lens B and draw some conclusion. But who claimed that they were designed with the same balanced end result in mind. The 135mm Nikon is one kick ass lens in terms of sharpness and contrast at a price that is impossible to beat. Backing into this decision - the question you have to ask yourself is will the Rodenstock provide give you an exhibition print that will be twice as good as the Rodenstock? I would bet not.

 

Get the Nikon and save your money for film. Worse case scenario, if it falls short, you will not lose any money in the re-sell market.

 

Cheers!

In general, the important difference between the Nikkor-W series and the Apo-Sironar-S is coverage. Most focal lengths of the Nikkor-W have (per Nikon's specs) 70 degrees of coverage, while the Apo-Sironar-S lenses (per Rodenstock' specs), with the exception of the 360 mm focal length, have 75 degrees of coverage. In some cases the extra bit of coverage could be quite useful, e.g., for a 150 mm lens with 4x5 film. In other cases the extra coverage would unlikely to be useful, e.g., 240 mm with 4x5 film, and it would make sense to select a cheaper lens than the Apo-Sironar-S, perhaps a Nikkor-W or Apo-Sironar-N.

 

The 135 mm Nikkor-W is a bit of an exception. For this lens Nikon rates the coverage as 73 degrees at f22, which is 200 mm diameter. So for this focal length the difference compared to the Apo-Sironar-S (208 mm diameter) isn't large. While the Apo-Sironar-S has more coverage, an extra 4 mm of shift doesn't seem worth almost a factor of two in price. (Of course, in this question the price difference also includes used vs new.)

I use the 135mm Sironar S with a Wisner Technical Field and have loved it. I'm not familiar with the Nikkon, but I do know that hte Rodenstock has an impressively large image cirle at 208mm. This is essential if you plan on doing anything with extensive movements. Good luck!!

For many years the most expensive piece of photographic equipment I owned was the 50mm lens for my 35mm camera. The lens happens to be Leitz Summilux M. It's a stellar lens, and has served me both well, and very often. I am always amazed at people who spend large sums for a lens hardly ever used. My 135 (Nikon W) is my second most used after the 200. I find it a very useful length for many things. If I was replacing it and could afford it, I would buy the best lens I could find. Ten years and many images from now you won't remember the cost, just the images.

Thanks to all who responded with your thoughts and advice. They were all very useful.

the apo siinar s 135 rodenstock outside edge resolution at f 22 is 58... the nikon 135 outside resolution is about 38 at f22. .. 38 is about avereage witha lot of lenses in this perspective.. its that the rodenstock is quite remarkable in this respect.. it makes it a great first to buy and main lens for large format cameras at a very reasbke price.. remember the f 64, this can be a plus in some conditions.. ive had great luck in closeups also.. its actually a little bit wide angle helping out with depth of field,.. good luck..

I bought a Rodenstock APO Sironar S 135mm as my first lens and I really love it. Yes it costs more than a used Nikon, but once the money is spent you'll have a lifetimes use of a lens that is the best 135mm made.

In case anyone is interested, I ended up buying the Rodenstock from Badger. Their price was slightly higher than B&H but after a bad experience with B&H I don't deal with them any more. Thanks again to all who responded to my question.

Good deal. You should be very happy with that lens.